User talk:Compassionate727/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Admiral Markets Group

Hello, I am a new user and I have some questions regarding an article (Admiral Markets Group) which was deleted. Is it possible for you to kindly give me your contact details, you can contact me at ifr_ko@hotmail.com . We can discuss how to solve the issue and it will help for future articles as well. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifr ko (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence Aid

Hi thanks for bringing my attention to possible duplications, most of these were within the references or names of organizations or phrase like natural disaster which is commonly used. Those that could be changed were. I also removed promotional language and repetitions. I will be adding much more in the way of references in the coming weeks. it is my first attempt at a page so really appreciate your insight as to what sounds promotional so I can remove that kind of language and produce a better quality page this time and in the future.AmyEBHC (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Proxy war

Hello friend. You called my attention, in relation to article proxy war. Indeed, I've been active on that article, in October 2014. Things possibly have changed on that article since then, and I don't have too much time now to check all those edits minutely. You tell me (23 April), you "didn't like it either", which is totally vague to me. If you want my renewed involvement, I advise you to be specific towards me about what it is in the article that needs correction, to your opinion. Without such explanation, I will not spend my scarce time on studying your User:Compassionate727/sandbox-page, I'm sorry to say. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

I noticed you fixed the redirect to the article. Sorry about that! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 12:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That's alright. I removed it because I didn't know what it was. I thought that it was some glitch resulting from the redirect going to page that doesn't exist. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

100 Pipers

I have created new article 100 Pipers, I'm relatively new at Wikipedia, can you tell me how to patrol pages and what happens if page is not patrolled? --Human3015 talk • 13:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling as an optional feature. It is simply a way for users to find new pages an come up with ways to help improve them. To learn more about patrolling pages, go to WP:New pages patrol. In the third section there, there is a link to a feed of new pages, called Special:NewPagesFeed. There you can find a list of new articles.

Like I said, patrolling is entirely optional. I don't recommend you patrol other people's articles until you feel comfortable writing your own, but after taking a look at 100 Pipers, I'd say you have a good idea of how to do that. While we're talking about 100 Pipers, I'd recommend you see if you can't expand it. I don't know if you'd be able to do that or not, since I don't know the topic very well, but it seems short right now. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Work in progress

Dear Compassionat727, I was still working on Samur-Yalama National Park. Now, I am finished and I removed your additions concerning missing issues, hope it is OK with you, regards, Henriduvent (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Again me,. You added some comments to the lemma. You suggested that I would have a close connection to the issue. That is not the case at all. If you mean that I have some professional knowledge on national parks and nature copnservation in general, yes that is true, but is that a problem? Another comment regards citations. Because almost all information in the lemma is based on two sources, probably the only available sources in English, more specific citations make no sense, I think. Necertheless I specified. Please explain your comments. Thanks in advance, best regards, Henriduvent (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, not you, your source. One of them (I believe the first one) appeared to be published by the entity that runs the park (It sounded like a random park, and that website was .gov, which was why I got suspicious). I didn't take a very close look, so I don't know for sure. As far as specific citations, most statements should have an inline citation. You can use a citation more than once. To do so, originally mark the reference using this: . Then, in the future, just use to mark that as being from that reference again. Note that name can equal anything, as long as you haven't already named a different reference in the article with that. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Dangit, it parsed it. Just click edit and look at the code. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I'd like to apologize for my criticism of the website. I took a closer look at, and its not biased. I'm a patroller, so I just go through pages, mark all the things that could be issues, and let people who are actually interested in the article take care of it, or remove my notice if there's nothing to take care of. Compassionate727 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Louis Phillips (author)

Could you please explain the specific reasons for tagging the above-noted article with maintenance tags? That is, which claims in particular do you feel lack appropriate sources? —Psychonaut (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Posted on the article's talk page. Compassionate727 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm ChicXulub. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Tamara Wigley, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. ChicXulub (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

I had no idea that creating redirects rapidly could affect this. Sorry. Rubbish computer 22:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should reword that. You're not actually affecting performance, but I can't patrol your pages as fast as you're producing them, creating a backlog of unpatrolled redirects. Compassionate727 (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you rather I created, say, 15 redirects, edited something else for 2 minutes and then came back? Rubbish computer 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Redirect

Hi Compassionate727. I received a message over a redirect I created, but when I go to the link to discuss it, it is not here. I'm confused. Regards. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Which one? Compassionate727 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

2013 USA Pro Challenge Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to create the talk page, if that's what you're talking about. Or actually, I'll do that. Compassionate727 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you can delete it if you want, no biggie. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One Medical Group

What is wrong with the inline citations?Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What page? (I can't remember everything I've gone through, I go through so many of them.) Compassionate727 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No speedy deletion for A7

Hi. As a new page patroller,you marked article Seattle Cascades (AUDL) for speedy deletion under A7: "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7)" (see article history). Wikipedia:New pages patrol says (about 2/3 of the way down the page, in section "New pages that may require deletion," subsection "Speedy deletion is a tool which can easily be overused"):

Since speedy deletion removes a page without discussion, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete if there is any plausible reason that the article should be kept. In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Slip (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Help

Does Wikipedia have a specific style that you're supposed to use when citing webpages? There's an official template for webpages, but I've been manually filling it out in MLA Format. Is this perfectly fine, or would it be preferred if I used the official template?

There's no house style for citations; MLA is perfectly acceptable. The {{cite}} templates are common because they are fairly easy to use and can also be auto-generated using the Cite button, but any other valid form of citation is fine - as long as it provides the reader with enough information to locate the source, it's a useful citation. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Besides the bare urls (which do provide you with enough information until they die.) Compassionate727 (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Using reFill on Yamagata Prefectural Sakata Higashi High School

Hi. I noticed that you tried to use reFill on Yamagata Prefectural Sakata Higashi High School here, but that it ended up inserting a bunch of hash signs in the code. Don't worry, it's easy to fix.

The hash signs are being inserted by Internet Explorer's cross-site scripting (XSS) filter. You can disable the filter by going to →"Internet options"→"Security"→Custom level..., scrolling to near the bottom of the list to "Enable XSS filter", and choosing "Disable". You can also work around the filter by copying everything in reFill's "New Wiki Markup" box and manually pasting it into Wikipedia or by using another web browser.

It also looks like nobody formally welcomed you, so, on behalf of the Wikipedia community, welcome and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada

Hello Compassionate727. I have edited the article i.e.Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada to comply with the requirements of Wikipedia. Hpsatapathy (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Offshore Indus Basin

I'm a bit confused by what you have in mind when you say that the Offshore Indus Basin needs more inline refs. It seems decently referenced to me. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I marked two things. It's just small things like that. I don't think you need to go out and find new sources, but you should clarify that that's where it came from (I think, I haven't been told I'm being picky yet). Compassionate727 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that citations aren't actually required in the lead? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No I do not, that is useful to know. I'll then proceed to point out that the first paragraph of Basin stratigraphy doesn't have any citations. Compassionate727 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case, some of that isn't in the body, where it should be, so it's appropriate to cite in lead. But not every sentence needs a ref - in this case, the statements you tagged were supported by the refs in the following sentence. You should have at least one ref per paragraph, preferably more, but it's reasonable to support several sentences with a single ref. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in but, Compassionate727, you may want to read wp:IC to get a better picture of exactly what needs cited. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

howso linkrot?

hello;

re: Comité des Étudiants Américains de l'École des Beaux-Arts Paris

where did you find linkrot?

i only wrote the article a month & 1/2 ago, & i've just opened all of the reference links & they are all still "good".

o__0?

respectfully,

Lx 121 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no link rot yet, but the fact that they're just URLs makes them susceptible to it. Compassionate727 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your hard work, but please try to be careful with tagging

Hi there,

I just came by to let you know I removed the CSD-G2 tag at the Wendy Barclay article. G2 is for tests -- which is like when someone is experimenting with Wikipedia by creating an article (e.g. "This is bold text lol this is italics"). If it looks like a real article, even if it has problems, it's not for G2. As I went to leave this message I noticed some other people expressing concerns about your tagging (e.g. immediately above where, from what I can tell, it seems you tagged an article for link rot not because of link rot but because of potential future link rot?). Let me be clear that I think it's great you're diving into things like new pages patrolling and article maintenance, but if you aren't careful, mistakes can become disruptive and cause more harm than good (in the form of damaged articles, creating cleanup work for others, and, in the case of something like a CSD, causing newbies unnecessary anxiety. I'm not asking you to stop, but please be careful. If you ever have questions about any of it or want a second opinion on whether a template is being correctly applied, please leave a message at my talk page (the WP:TEAHOUSE is also good for that sort of thing). Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I tagged that article for deletion because of the tag that said it was a sandbox. That made me think that it was supposed to be a sandbox but had been accidentally put in the public domain. Also, did I misunderstand the intention of the {{linkrot}} tag? I was under the impression that it was supposed to be used whenever there were bare URLs. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The sandbox tag is created automatically when you create a sandbox and sometimes people forget to remove it when moving work to the article space. Better to go by what the article actually says.

I have to admit I misunderstood the above thread. I thought you had tagged it for dead links (Template:Citations broken) rather than Template:Cleanup-bare URLs. Still, looking at the edit, I note that the page doesn't actually use bare URLs for citations. The only refs there, as you note, are in the external links section, and only one of them does not include additional citation information ("Europeana1914-1918.eu") -- and that one looks like it's there as an external link rather than a citation. The idea is that if you cite a source but include no information other than the URL, there's nothing there for other people to go by if they want to track down another version of the same source. In other words, instead of the second link reading "Albright, Alan. "Notable American Volunteers of the Great War." WWI WWW. n.p., n.d. Web. 19 May 2015. <http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/volsnote.html>." it would just say "http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/volsnote.html". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. As far as it having that information is concerned, that's because I fixed that roughly a half hour ago. Originally all of them were just the URLs. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff I linked to was where you added the linkrot tag at the top. If you had already fixed them, why add the tag? But to be honest I'm far less concerned about maintenance tags than deletion. The potential consequences of a misplaced deletion tag are significant -- significant for the project, since it loses an article it shouldn't have, but more importantly (to me anyway) significant for whoever worked on the article. I don't know if that's happened to you, but especially for a new person having your work deleted can be devastating -- frustrating at best -- and is a frequent cause of people losing interest in participating. So I have to mention that I also noticed you added copypaste and BLPPROD tags to Molly Leach. The only copy/pasted part of the article is a brief, attributed quote (there are links in that template, even, which show you whether text matches). Copy/pasting is a problem for copyright and plagiarism reasons, and brief quotes are exempt from that (assuming it says where it's quoting him, which this does). That a source is cited at all means BLPPROD doesn't apply. The source doesn't have to be an inline citation. The article isn't a good one, to be sure, but primarily because too much of it is a hodgepodge of quotes from sources rather than prose that summarizes sources. So Template:Over-quotation would be appropriate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as the copypaste goes, I was just checking to see if was copied and pasted from a website, which happens somewhat frequently when something is unsourced. I got about a 50%. I figured this wasn't enough for a CSD, so I just left the tag. I didn't see that it was a quotation. (I actually didn't realize the entire thing was a set of quotations.) As far as the BLP PROD goes, I know what that is used for. I don't see any citations anywhere in that article. Where do you see one?

Also, jumping back to the other article, I added the tag over twelve hours ago. I initially didn't bother the fix the citations, since I couldn't clean them up using reFILL. However, since this was becoming such a big issue, I decided I should.Compassionate727 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding citations at Molly Leach, a citation is just a documented use of a source. If there's a quote, and it says where the quote is from, that's a citation. Since the article is largely composed of quotes, each of which has attribution, for the content it has, it's actually a well cited if poorly written/formatted article. The second point is about the link rot, right? I can't say I follow. The diff I linked to above shows where you added the link rot and the current state of the article at that point. There were no bare URLs at that point. Maybe some tags were added/removed accidentally before or after that, I don't know. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you didn't remove the BLPPROD tag at Molly Leach despite it being pointed out that it doesn't apply. Today it was deleted by an admin likely used to seeing it used appropriately. After some time wasted on my part and that of the deleting (and restoring) admin, it's back and the tags are gone. Please, if you're going to play fast and loose with tags, at least follow up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Help requests

I keep experiencing edit conflicts with my own edits. Is there any way I can fix this?

The only way you'd experience an edit conflict with your own edit would be if you edited the same page you're already editing in another window, while editing in the first window. What is likely happening is other people are editing the page while you are trying to edit the page. That is normal. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would normally expect that to be the problem, but all the differences are changes that I had just attempted to make. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This may sound like a silly question, but could it be that the error message is "Loss of session data" rather than an edit conflict? If not, is it possible that for some reason your mouse is double clicking on the save button? I've done that accidentally a few times and it results in the behavior you describe. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Does 50% copyright violation warrant CSD G12, if the article is not a good one? (I specifically have Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka in mind here.)

I think the article is borderline for G12, but certainly a copyright violation problem, so I've replaced the text of the article with a copyright problem investigation tag and listed it at WP:Copyright problems for review. Thanks for bringing it up! It seems that article has a history of copyright issues resulting in deletion as well. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Heads up?

Can you give me a heads up as to what you are meaning by undocumented text in the Félix Ramos y Duarte article? I do not usually put anything in an article if it is not cited and you put no notes as to what you have an issue with on the talk page. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have gone back through and rechecked every source. There is not one paragraph wherein a source is not cited or wherein the citation does not specifically verify the sentences preceding them. The only section that is uncited is the lede, which is according to Wiki policy. Please explain what you mean or remove the erroneous tag you placed. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I took another look at it. I'll explain later, probably tomorrow. (I'm using a mobile device, and I hate typing with those.) Compassionate727 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, first things first, Return to Cuba only has one inline citation, and it's not all about the exact same topic. If you got the information that he returned to Cuba in 1899 in the same place that you got the info about his master work, you should clarify that. Also, the selected works section, particularly the unpublished works, could use citations. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources are not about a topic they are about where the information came from. Every thing in that paragraph is from the source cited. There is no reason to affix another source or add multiple listings of the same source, as no other source has been introduced. The topic may have changed, the source did not. If you want to find additional sources, feel free to look. Articles can always use improvement. I have been instructed by numerous administrators NOT to cite sources on a list of published works. They are "published", thus people can find them. If you google him, the very first thing that comes up after his wiki page is a link to his books. SusunW (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand the part about published works. I see several things listed as "unpublished manuscripts," though, which means you can't just look them up on Google, and should be cited.

I fail to understand, truly, why it is that people don't just change what they want changed. Instead, they tag, or mark, or expect someone else to do it. I am not being cantankerous, simply observing how odd it is that we have spent two days discussing this when if you wanted it changed, it would have taken seconds for you to do it. There aren't "several" unpublished manuscripts. There are 2. I have stated where the first unpublished manuscript can be found and I have discussed at his master work, the Yucayo dictionary in the text, with citation. Apparently, that is inadequate, as you want an additional citation, which seems redundant and unnecessary to me. I don't own the page, if you want additional citations, add them, but they are not required, the page is cited properly. SusunW (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Help me

Sorry, I wasn't clear the first time. If someone nominates a page for speedy deletion using a tool such as twinkle, it usually posts a message on the creator's talk page. If that person removes the notice from their talk page, should I re-add it?

Nope. People are allowed to remove messages from their own talkpages; doing so is regarded as a statement that the message has been read. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deleton for LKQ Corporation

Hi, your tagging of the LKQ Corporation page for speedy deletion appeared to be based entirely on your dislike for an admittedly extremely inappropriate (WP:spam, WP:LEGAL, etc.) edit by someone. I've gone ahead and reverted the page back to the stub version that the page was previous to that edit, which I don't think can possibly qualify for deletion at all, much less speedy. If you feel otherwise, you can head back and re-tag it, but as it appears that I'm not the first Wikipedian to have this complaint on your talk page, you may want to be more careful in the future. Thanks. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I failed to notice that the article hadn't always been a violation. I just did a check like I usually do, it came up positive for four websites, and I tagged it with three of them. I'm personally not fond of reverting it back to a stub, since stubs aren't good articles either, but there's not much I can do about that. I'll update the tags and leave it be. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It Will Be Me (Disambiguation) page move

Hi, I disagree with your move, because neither song has an article. Per WP:DABNAME, "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation)." There is no primary topic, so I think it should've been left at It Will Be Me. Melonkelon (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you need help?

You left this message, however, the article hasn't been AfD'ed. LMK if you need assistance proposing it. LavaBaron (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I put a PROD on the article using Twinkle, which automatically notifies the creator. I then removed the PROD, but forgot to change the talk page. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's still not listed under AfD, however. Do you want me to list it? LavaBaron (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you want it listed for AfD? LavaBaron (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like content that belongs in an encyclopedia, but I'm not completely sure. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you could let me know your AfD plans for this article. You notified me on my Talk page you were AfD'ing it but now say you don't care. Do you plan to AfD it down the road, today, never? Can you give me a timeline so I know if I should bother to prepare an Oppose statement or not? LavaBaron (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't plan on it, no. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As a general piece of advice, it's generally not courteous to notify editors an article has been proposed for deletion when, in fact, it has not been proposed for deletion and you have no plans to propose it for deletion. This is really a waste of everyone's time. LavaBaron (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. Like I said earlier, I proposed it for deletion, then reverted the edit on the page but forgot to remove the notification on your talk page. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It was never listed in AfD; simply adding a tag to a page is not sufficient to list an article at Articles for Deletion. If you are this confused about what articles should be proposed for deletion and which should not, I would recommend you not propose articles for deletion, generally. If you're unclear about how Wikipedia works, or what constitutes encyclopedic content, there are some resources you can read to give you a very basic introduction to what Wikipedia is and how it works. Best of luck - LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP prods

Hello, and thank you for your work with new pages. Just here to let you know why I've removed your BLP prod from the page Zabolonkov Andrey. If you look at the second sentence of the page [[WP:BLPPROD}}, you'll see that "the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography" (bolding original). The Zabolonkov page has two sources in the External links section, both live, both supporting content in the article, so the BLP prod is inappropriate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw in your edit summary. Thanks anyway! Compassionate727 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:142.26.19.2, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. —LucasThoms 18:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Honiara

Hello,

Please avoid tagging my pages for deletion. Have a look at honiara and in the template below the article "suburbs" you will see a number of suburbs. I am working on them from left to right. Skyline and other stubs have been made for the purpose of placeholders.

thank you

Phenss (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sergei Walter

Sergei Walter - прошу не удалять статью, я автор (работаю украинским журналистом), активно дополняю в Русской Википедии, и написал статью в Украинской Википедии. Прошу помочь в редактирование, но не надо удалять. Please help save the article, I am the author (Ukrainian journalist) in the Russian Wikipedia, and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Please help save and edit correctly. --DENAMAX (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Если бы это было только плохое грамматики и тому подобное, что я не хотел бы предложить исключить его. К сожалению, нарушения авторских прав другая история. По сути, вся статья была скопирована и вставить из упомянутого источника. Снятие защищенный авторским правом материал не оставил бы существенно ничего. Таким образом, быстрое удаление.

If it were just the bad grammar and things like that, I wouldn't propose it be deleted. Unfortunately, copyright violations are a different story. Essentially, the entire article has been copied and pasted from the mentioned source. Removing the copyrighted material would leave essentially nothing. Thus, the speedy deletion.Compassionate727 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Уберите лишнее, помогите отредактировать, и спасти статью. Please save the article. --DENAMAX (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Help

Featured and good articles have the templates {{featured article}} and {{good article}}, respectively, to put an icon in the top right-hand corner. Do these templates exist for other types?

Do you mean you want that symbol at somewhere else?
117.212.143.218 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd like a different symbol in the same place.

For what purpose?
Well, you can use this template {{Top icon}} and use the parameter of | imagename = to place another image. Have a look at the template, but don't misuse it. I guess it would be used in namespace only.
117.212.143.218 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sergei Walter

Hello Compassionate727. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sergei Walter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Looking at the forum post dates and the edit history here, it looks like they've copied this page, not the other way around. No copyvio in my opinion. Also clearly notable enough for A7. Take to AfD if necessary. Thank you. GedUK  12:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --DENAMAX (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

• News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out

• Blog: How Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition

• Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia

• Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings

• Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier

• Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013

• In the media: Anonymous Australian editing targets football player, shooting victim

• Traffic report: A rather ordinary week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)